In “Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan,” Jarrett Murphy talks about the immense amount of rezoning that has taken place under the Bloomberg administration. This rezoning poses a disturbance because it changes the regulations governing the way land is used, the style and height of buildings, the size of yards and the distance between houses. Although the rationale behind the rezoning is to make New York ready for a larger population to live in, I think that it can cause disturbances for the current residents and planners in New York City. I find it interesting that as a part of the rezoning initiatives, planners were giving incentives to build larger buildings as long as they were providing affordable housing. This makes sense since it would provide people with more living opportunities and would help the low-income families with finding an economic residence.

I think that it would make sense to develop the infrastructure near areas of public transportation so people would be inclined to settle there and it would also make traveling around the city more convenient. However, since all of the rezoning was not done at these transit locations, there were other economic goals that were more important for the city planners to consider, such as locating people to the waterfront. I also find it interesting that most upzoning projects were for the whiter and wealthier areas, which shows that the city planners had economic plans for their changes.

The fact that the zoning was being done to accomodate the developers’ visions of how the city should be growing seems very dangerous to me. If their visions do not come to fruition, then the results may be unexpected and can cause the city and the residents of the specific rezoned neighborhoods to suffer. This is another way in which rezoning can fail when estimations are made for future populations and lifestyles. I was surprised that New York started the trend of city-wide zoning regulations which describe what can be built on every square foot of the city. I thought that New York would have used another city that had a proven story of such a plan being effective before it took such a major step.

The transformation of the zoning regulations also shows some of the overall changes made across New York City itself. As it becomes more modern and holds more people, it needs to find a way to accomodate more residents while also looking like an urban oasis. It is also interesting that so many of the major cities across the nation have such different zoning regulations and what they limit or call for. For example, in Chicago’s zoning regulations, they laid out streets but also plotted where cultural facilities and parks should go, unlike New York’s original zoning regulation.

It is an interesting thought that Manhattan could have been less dense had the city made proper and more detailed zoning regulations. This would certainly have solved many issues plaguing the city today. Also, the possibility of the city having more of a balance of jobs would be a huge positive had such regulations been created. However, even though the past cannot be changed, planners are still not making amends to the city’s zoning regulations that would help the future of New York City be more sustainable for its growing population. I guess that Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC is the closest thing yet to a plan for a sustainable city. However, the plan is more of an agenda than a plan so the future of the city still remains uncertain as planners are yet to come up with a sustainable idea for the future of the city.

“Free market may be imperfect, but they’re far better than the alternative—the blight of arbitrary government control and the uncertainty that it creates.” Nicole Gelinas conveys this message throughout her article, Eminent Domain as Central Planning. Over the past few years, the use of eminent domain in central planning has heightened greatly, but its outcome is not necessarily as beneficial as many may assume. Gelinas brings to light the stark reality that “the [government’s] duty to design a perfect economy trumps…constituents’ right to hold private property.” What is even worse is that a perfect economy is rarely the realized result.

According to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize property if it is intended for “public use” and only if “just compensation” is given. Generally, “blighted” property is grounds for public seizure. Over the years, however, the definitions of each requirement have changed, broadened, and have become much more subjective. According to Gelinas, in the 1930s, “blighted” meant “families and children dying from rampant fires and pestilence in tuberculosis-ridden firetraps.” By 2006, this definition encompass isolated graffiti, cracked sidewalks, and underutilization of land that does not “generate the social and economic benefits the government desires.” This has allowed for many more opportunities to seize land that otherwise would have been left in private hands. More importantly, such subjective and arbitrary decisions actually violate due process, according to Gelinas—one of many reasons that eminent domain should not be too freely exercised.

Although there seems to be a trend towards increasing use of eminent domain for positive economic benefits, there are many examples that portray quite a different reality. Gelinas points to multiple government projects—the Atlantic Yards and rows of homes slated for demolition, the Spalding Building now abandoned, vacant lots where lively businesses once stood—where land is now decaying due to the governments impeding of genuine private improvement.  It is ironic that central planning is perceived to be superior to free-market competition if these are some of its results. To remedy this, Gelinas advocates the state should not interfere in people’s property.

If the government does not intervene, can any progress be made? Gelinas proposes the organic growth of communities, rather than large-scale public intervention. The government should provide public necessities such as policing, infrastructure and the like. In turn, this will allow local residents to constantly improve their communities, albeit slowly. Unfortunately, the opposite has been occurring. In Willets Point, for example, the city “is starving the private sector of public resources,” making it much easier to deem areas “blighted” and exercise eminent domain.

After many weeks of reading about public housing and government intervention in the economy, it would be wrong to say that central planning is completely bad. Gelinas’s article, however, made me realize that the broadening jurisdiction of eminent domain seems to be hurting neighborhoods more than it should be helping. Increasingly creative definitions are becoming the new central planning model, but this model may not be the best. I agree with Gelinas’s decision that clearer standards for the government’s power to seize property are necessary. The government should stick to providing communities with necessities and letting them better themselves slowly but surely.

Over the past couple of years one major issue that has been voiced regarding the Atlantic Yards project has been the law of Eminent Domain. One of the fundamental principles included in the United States Constitution, is that everyone has the right to own property, and that the government must do all that is in its power to protect this right. However, according to the law of Eminent Domain, which stems from the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, the government can legally seize private property for a “public use,” as long as they provide the owner with just compensation. Over the years, this law has been misrepresented and altered to include the fact that the government can seize land, not only for a public use, such as the construction of roads and railways, but also for a public purpose, which includes rebuilding blighted areas that have been underutilized.

Nicole Gelinas, author of the article, “Eminent Domain as Central Planning,” believes that in the case of the Atlantic Yards the government is overstepping its limits. She states that government officials believe that “central planning is superior to free-market competition.” It is their opinion that “their duty to design a perfect economy trumps their constituents’ right to hold private property.” They believe that an arena and high-rise buildings are better than a low-rise neighborhood, and are therefore invoking their power of Eminent Domain to achieve their goals. However, in reality, who’s to say which alternative is better than the other. While residents may believe that a low-rise community is better than one filled with high-rise office towers, developers may take the opposite view. She believes that the first step in combating this law, is to get rid of the term “underutilization” as a justification for taking ones property. If “underutilization” remains as a criteria of Eminent Domain, it will ultimately create a policy in which all property will require commercial development.

One part of her article that I found to be extremely interesting, was when she described how West Harlem owners won their court case. In order to prove that their neighborhood does not fall under the category of “blighted” and therefore does allow the government to seize their property under the law of Eminent Domain, the owners conducted a  study to show that their neighborhood was not blighted. They understood that the government would conduct a report showing that it was blighted and therefore believed that a good way to combat the government’s case was to create their own study. Furthermore, they provided a former government study showing that their neighborhood was being revitalized. However, after discussing this case, Gelinas correctly stated that property rights should not depend on the owner’s creativity to prove, but should be a law that is followed and kept without any hesitation.

One point concerning Eminent Domain, which Gelinas failed to mention, is in regards to the definition of “just compensation.” The question that remains is who gets to determine the amount of compensation that the government must pay the owners for their property? While the owners may believe that their property is worth more due to sentimental value, the government may believe that it is worth less because sentimental value is not included in the market price. This creates a battle between the government and residents, in which they can’t decide what the market value of the property really is. Furthermore, what happens if a family cannot find a home that suits their needs with the “just compensation” that they are offered? Besides for the fact that confiscating private property is wrong, there are no clear guidelines stating the grounds on which “just compensation” is to be determined.

At the end of the article, Galinas makes a great argument, which really goes to show you the destruction that Eminent Domain can cause. She states that if you walk through Prospect Heights you can finally see the decay that the government wants you to see. Land where historic buildings once stood are now vacant lots, leaving the area “gap-toothed.” The decay, however, was not caused by the market, rather it was brought about by the developer who urged the government to invoke its powers, just so they can make a profit.

A large portion of states have city planning regimes in place, some even requiring local laws to conform with local plans regarding land use, housing and open space. But why put such an emphasis on strategy? Simple. City planning is the crux of developing and sustaining a thriving metropolis. Having said that, I was quite alarmed when I read Jarrett Murphy’s article Five Boroughs. One City. No Plan. Why is New York City falling behind in its efforts to effectively plan the future of the metropolis we live in?

In addition to roughly 8.2 million residents, New York City is home to a rapidly growing population, rising seas, dwindling energy supplies and much more. These issues were only proliferated by the city effectively dodging the creation of a comprehensive plan back in the 20^th Century. Failing to plan accordingly in the past puts New York City in a tough position, but the failure to plan accordingly now is what will set us up for trouble ahead. NYC is in desperate need of a comprehensive plan but it does not seem to be doing anything about it.

A quasi-attempt to establish a city “plan” was made in 1916 with the passing of the first zoning resolution. It was since amended, time and time again, as 9,400 blocks were rezoned since 2002. While rezoning is a necessary task, it is not a cure-all. If implemented strategically (if dense neighborhoods are downzoned and more sparsely-populated areas were upzoned properly), it is a great starting point. However, it seems that New York City has used zoning as a crutch, neglecting other means of city planning.

It would be unfair to say that New York City has turned a blind eye to urban design all together. The truth is that numerous ideas were introduced, but each had shortcomings of their own. PlaNYC, for example, made the government a prominent player in city planning and encouraged unique thinking, but was not an actual plan that linked “noble sentiments and…zoning decisions.” As professor Vicki Been of NYU says, “…it’s been a very important contribution, but I don’t think it’s a substitute for the kind of comprehensive planning…” that New York City needs. Policies, namely environmental impact statements, require a painfully slow process. Community benefits agreements give way to conflicting interests and are not exactly legally enforceable. Unfortunately, the challenge of bridging the gap between planning communities and the legal system has been difficult to overcome.

So where does New York City stand right now? Failure to plan in the past is a sunken cost that we now have to deal with. Little is being done now because the real estate industry prefers a “freer hand,” ethnic and political diversity pose resistance, and the growth of New York City outpaces the planning process currently in place. A comprehensive plan is desperately needed, but that is much easier said than done. If the city does not effectively plan now, future difficulties will certainly not be ameliorated. As Elena Conte, organizer at the Pratt Center, said very well, “The absence of comprehensive planning will leave New York City without the foundation for sound future growth.”

First off I enjoyed this reading by Altshuler I thought it was really interesting that the city could be used like a business even though I knew that most politics involve businesses. Regarding the Introduction to the book, one of the only thing I could think of when he mentioned mega projects was Hydraulic Fracturing Also known as Fracking. Furthermore, I also liked the Format used in the Introduction.

Hydraulic Fracking is the process by which natural gas is taken from the ground by use of a water source. In order to do this, first one must drill through the ground and using a pressurized liquid break shale and then gas is released from this pressure. This gas leads to many economic advantages, such as decreased gas prices and a boost in the general economy. However, there is a detrimental effect which is the effect it has on the water supply of the residents in the area, sometimes the chemicals leak into the water and the water can become hazardous to drink and at times even have the ability to catch fire.

Fracking falls into both of the topics discussed in the introduction as a reason for wanting to study public investments. Regarding the first reason that says that the project often has effects on the political development of the area and Fracking definitely has an effect in this regard. In fact many people try and get the government to end Fracking in their neighborhoods, however many times their pleas fall on deaf ears since there are many benefits to Fracking that a lot of people aren’t willing to let it go so easily. The second reason discussed was that the city gives monetary or regulatory inducements to attract investors. Well in my opinion this qualification is also met because the government is not really doing much to hinder the fracking companies, they haven’t even enacted much laws to it’s prevention when it is hurting their citizens. Therefore, since there is mainly positive reinforcement for the natural gas companies, they will take advantage of this leeway and use the land for money while hurting the citizens.

Lastly, I liked the format of the introduction, where I found it entertaining how he said at the end you can skip Chapters 3 and Eight and not miss much. To me it seemed like he was really confident about his writing style, where he was sure that after getting that immersed in the book the reader would choose to read them out of his own free will. Well if he kept the writing style like that where it was almost entertaining to read and he adds this kind of humor I don’t see why the reader would choose to skip out on the chapters.

Altshuler, in my opinion wrote one of the greatest introductions to a book that I have read because it was humorous at points and structured really well. However, throughout the introduction he says that most of the mega-projects he will discuss are railways and bridges and it makes me wonder if he’s going to discuss some negative mega-projects such as Hydrofracking. All in all I was actually really interested in the reading and might dread the book a bit further because maybe he mentions Fracking somewhere, or maybe he mentions why it doesn’t count as a mega-project.

When the Atlantic Yards project was first announced, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the issue. On one hand, many believed that the development would lead to gentrification and the alteration of the neighborhood as a whole. They believed that new housing, as well as the Barclays Center, would lead to increased rents, the arrival of national tenants and the driving out of low and moderate income residents. However, there were also many who saw the Atlantic Yards mega-project as an opportunity to revive the area and neighborhood. It would provide more housing around the area and allow for the resurgence or rejuvenation of Downtown Brooklyn. It would also increase traffic to the area, and in turn allow local businesses to thrive and prosper. Although I believe that the development of Atlantic Yards would be great for the area, it must be implemented correctly, so that it doesn’t take away from the “character” of the neighborhood.

In the article, “Opposing Atlantic Yards: Fails to Accomplish a Delicate Balance,” Kent Barwick provides reasons for why he is against the Atlantic Yards development. The first issue that he states is that the city is offering incentives for developers to build affordable housing, stating that if they do they can build taller buildings. Although they are providing more affordable housing, they are increasing the density of the neighborhood as well, thereby “sacrificing neighborhood character.” Another problem with the project is that due to the fact that it is developer driven instead of city driven, they are proposing to take away many public places or streets. Instead, he argues that they should not only keep existing streets but add new ones as well, in order to improve the circulation around the area and provide for the free flow of traffic in the neighborhood.

When I first read Barwick’s article I was extremely surprised by his perspective on the Atlantic Yards project. When I first looked at it, I thought that by providing affordable housing for low and moderate income families, the area can avoid the issue of gentrification. However, Barwick saw it a different way. He believed that by providing affordable housing the developer receives incentives to build taller buildings and more units that are on the free market. This would then increase the density of the area and the proportion of the units that are free market, thereby altering the identity or makeup of the neighborhood. Another point that I found to be interesting was when he stated that in order for this project to become successful, the city and state must be able to “demonstrate they can listen to New Yorkers, and establish opportunities for them to shape the major projects that will affect their lives.” After all, this project is directly interfering with their lives and in order to make it work you must have the support of the people who actually live in and take part in the neighborhood. Without the backing of the community members, there is absolutely no way that this project can become a success.

To demonstrate the other side of the argument we read the article, “Supporting Atlantic Yards: Simply Not Enough Housing in Brooklyn,” by the executive director of NY ACORN, Bertha Lewis. She argues that over the next 25 years New York City’s population is expected to rise 16 percent and that there is simply not enough housing to accommodate for the needs of this increasing population. Besides for increasing the housing stock, the apartments must be affordable for low to moderate income families as well as senior citizens. As a result, they have made an agreement with Forest City Ratner, to allow 50 percent of their 4,500 rental units to provide for affordable housing for low to middle income families. Furthermore, these units will be scattered throughout their many buildings and within the free market units to allow for a diverse neighborhood.

Although I believe that the Atlantic Yards development project would provide for a resurgence of the area, there are certain steps that must be followed in order to ensure that it doesn’t take away from the neighborhood’s identity. Firstly, a proportion of the housing must be set aside for low to moderate income families, providing for affordable housing. By doing so, it will allow the development to continue the “character” or demographics of the area. It also must provide for proper public spaces, as was one of Barwick’s suggestions. I believe that with the proper supervision and community participation the Atlantic Yards project can prove to be a success.